Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists (BBC)

[eppur_se_muova]

By Pippa Stephens
Health reporter, BBC News

Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, contains errors in nine out of 10 of its health entries, and should be treated with caution, a study has said.

Scientists in the US compared entries about conditions such as heart disease, lung cancer, depression and diabetes with peer-reviewed medical research.

They said most articles in Wikipedia contained "many errors".

Wikimedia UK, its British arm, said it was "crucial" that people with health concerns spoke to their GP first.
***
more: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27586356

[Warpy]

1. Wikipedia articles try to be cutting edge

and that means they often include studies that will be found bogus with careful review.

Dr. Google doesn't see you, doesn't know you. I agree that seeing a doc is best. Dr. Google is only good for explaining a few things that didn't quite register when you were handed a grim diagnosis or telling you whether or not that weird thing that's happening to you is an expected side effect of a medication or not.

[mopinko]

2. i like wiki for a lot of things. health info not so much.

good sites out there, like my own hospital system, and mayo clinic, john hopkins, etc.

[pinto]

3. +1

Sound advice.

[goldent]

4. Very good advice

But what is many times worse is the forums where people diagnose one another's illnesses, based on a sentence of two of symptoms and very little background.